| Page 2 of 3 < > |
Dunn, Four Others Charged in Hewlett Surveillance Case
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The charges are the first in the case, which is also being investigated by the FBI.
Dunn told the House Energy and Commerce oversight investigations subcommittee last week that she had been assured that the phone records were obtained legally, a claim that legal observers expect to be the heart of her defense.
At one point during Dunn's testimony last week, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, asked her if it was not correct that the fraudulent practice of obtaining phone records had been used in 2005.
"I believe it did use pretexting," she said.
Her attorney then whispered something to her.
"I've just been corrected," she said. "I don't know."
The complaint says that Dunn knew since at least June 2005 that the phone records were being obtained by deceptive means.
Hunsaker, DeLia and Wagner, one of the two investigators charged, refused to testify before the congressional panel last week, invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The other investigator, Matthew Depante, was not called to testify, but his father, Joseph Depante, owner of Action Research, also invoked the Fifth Amendment.
No one answered a phone call placed to Matthew Depante's home yesterday, but his attorney, Richard Preira of Miami Beach, said Depante was "not guilty."
"The conduct he is alleged to have engaged in is not a violation of the California penal code or the United States code," Preira said.
A lawyer for Hunsaker did not return calls seeking a comment. DeLia, a reached by telephone last night, said he was not guilty of the charges and declined to comment further.
On the federal level, phone pretexting is likely a violation of the criminal wire fraud statute, former federal prosecutors said.
